feat: full std.Address validation

[r3v4s]

Length of std.Address was only condition to check whether address is valid or not.
Fixing it by checking whether address can be decoded

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 47.48%. Comparing base (5c5d9ef) to head (5e8e935).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1799      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.49%   47.48%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         388      388              
  Lines       61311    61329      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        29117    29124       +7     
- Misses      29756    29767      +11     
  Partials     2438     2438              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[leohhhn]

Hey @r3v4s, thanks for the contribution. We initially thought about doing this, but then went with a simple length check because it would cover most human errors (ie inputting nothing for an address, or accidentally deleting a letter). I'll leave the reference for the PR/issue that introduced the initial address validation: #1298 (comment). We had an issue as the comment states, but now since #859 has been merged, your PR can work.

cc @thehowl

Please see why the CI is failing 🙏

[r3v4s]

Hey @r3v4s, thanks for the contribution. We initially thought about doing this, but then went with a simple length check because it would cover most human errors (ie inputting nothing for an address, or accidentally deleting a letter). I'll leave the reference for the PR/issue that introduced the initial address validation: #1298 (comment). We had an issue as the comment states, but now since #859 has been merged, your PR can work.

cc @thehowl

Please see why the CI is failing 🙏

Hello @leohhhn, if my memory serves me right, this issue was covered in Miami and I forgot to tag #1298

As you said, checking length does cover most human errors. However chain returns different result when used address has length of 40, but invalid character

g1ubwj0apf60hd90txhnh855fkac34rxlsvua0aa

1. sending (native)ugnot using gnokey maketx send returns Error: Data: invalid character not part of charset
2. sending (realm)grc20 token using gnokey maketx call -pkgpath {GRC20_PATH} -func Transfer -args {WRONG_FORMAT_ADDR} -args {SEND_AMOUNT} returns non error

I think second transaction should fail too.

P.S I'll fix cause of CI Failing

[r3v4s]

@leohhhn Fixed test case causing CI to fail. Not sure If I have to assign you as reviewer or not.

CI is still failing due to test case running too long

[thehowl]

you make a sound argument for addition. implementation looks good, testing can be improved. thanks!